CST LAW Letter Before Claim - far too late to appeal to common sense?

1505grandad

IPC CoP V7:-

https://theipc.info/uploads/BA5eFbbFFs8RF4brD_A90gl_0DVkomxYTxNRf16RK-U/Code of Practice V7 November 2019-V1-V2.pdf

Para 22:-

22 Debt and Debt Collection

22.1 Operators must take reasonable steps to ensure that the Motorist’s details are

still correct if 12 months have passed from the Parking Event before issuing court

proceedings.

22.2 Operators cannot sell the Parking Charge to a third-party company.

TeddyRuxpin83

Hi all,

Thanks for all the updates, and thanks especially to @1505grandad for the update on the IPC CoP. Life is getting in the way and time is rapidly running out to send my email to CST (LBC is dated Nov 5th). I'm getting a bit flustered.

It looks like para 22.1 from the IPC CoP is the one most related to the point (d) in my original message "(d) I require evidence that your client complied with the mandatory 'reminder' then 'final notice' letter chain". Should I amend this point with:

"(d) I require evidence that your client complied with the mandatory 'reminder' then 'final notice' letter chain, set out in para 22.1 of the IPC V7 Code of Practice, before resorting to 'debt recovery'."?

That line doesn't quite seem right.

Also paragraph 22.2 "Operators cannot sell the Parking Charge to a third-party company." seems pretty relevant. Is there a way to incorporate this? Such as amending point (c) to: 

"(c) You have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount of £60 to the PCN. As you will be aware, judges have dismissed an entire claim because of this. I want to narrow the issues because the additional £60 is clearly double recovery and appears to contravene para 22.2 of the IPC V7 Code of Practice."

I also received an email from PDUK asking for V5C/logbook as proof of ownership, so I will follow up on that.

Thanks!

Coupon-mad

"(d) I require evidence that your client complied with the mandatory 'reminder' then 'final notice' letter chain, set out in para 22.1 of the IPC V7 Code of Practice, before resorting to 'debt recovery'."?

There is no such IPC equivalent of the BPA CoP 24.4.  Drop that bit.

TeddyRuxpin83

Thank you, I'll remove that completely. Does it seem relevant to mention 22.1 at all? 

"22.1 Operators must take reasonable steps to ensure that the Motorist’s details are still correct if 12 months have passed from the Parking Event before issuing court proceedings."

Does my reference to 22.2 seem OK?

If anybody has any further advice of things to add, please feel free to share. Thanks again! :-) 

For clarity, here is my current 'draft' as it stands:

Dear Sirs,

I am writing in regards to an LBC received from you, for PCN xxxxx (on 28/01/2021) for VRM: <my reg> at the Victoria Industrial Estate car park on behalf of your client Park Direct UK Limited. This email is to note that:

(a) I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017 while I seek debt advice. 

(b) I have sent your client Park Direct UK Limited a SAR

(c) You have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount of £60 to the PCN. As you will be aware, judges have dismissed an entire claim because of this. I want to narrow the issues because the additional £60 is clearly double recovery and appears to contravene para 22.2 of the IPC V7 Code of Practice.

Finally, Park Direct UK can confirm a payment of £5 at 10:55pm 28/01/2021 to Park Direct via JustPark app (payment ID xxxx / xxxx). From 7pm-9am the Victoria Industrial Estate car park has a flat £5 fee. Paying earlier was impossible due to personal emergency.

I can confirm an address for service of:

<my address>

Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

Adding false debt recovery costs doesn't breach the IPC CoP.

TeddyRuxpin83

OK, should I mention 22.1 or 22.2 anywhere? They seem relevant, but I can't think how to incorporate them.

Coupon-mad

I really would not bother to embellish what the NEWBIES thread says to send at LBC stage, unless you have a compelling defence point to make that you think will stop a claim.

The NEWBIES thread does not tell anyone to bash their head against a brick wall by going on about the false added debt recovery' sum.  Pointless to enter into discussion about that at LBC stage, and this has been discussed to death before.

TeddyRuxpin83

Hi,

I was trying to follow your advice to "State that you require evidence, once the 30 day 'hold' for debt advice expires, that their client complied with the mandatory 'reminder' then 'final notice' letter chain, set out in para 24.4 of the BPA Code of Practice, before resorting to what they call 'debt recovery'." - but since that was no longer applicable due to being part of IPC, there does seem other relevant issues to bring up, instead.

And I'm of course trying to stop the claim. I'd much rather not lose a day's work and go to court, if possible.

In any case, here is my final draft, hopefully it's suitable.

Thanks again,

Dear Sirs,

I am writing in regards to an LBC received from you, for PCN xxxxx (on 28/01/2021) for VRM: <my reg> at the Victoria Industrial Estate car park on behalf of your client Park Direct UK Limited. This email is to note that:

(a) I am seeking debt advice but I deny any debt and the case must be put 'on hold' for not less than 30 days under the PAP for debt claims 2017 while I seek debt advice. 

(b) I have sent your client Park Direct UK Limited a SAR

(c) You have added what appears to be an extra unlawful amount of £60 to the PCN. As you will be aware, judges have dismissed an entire claim because of this. I want to narrow the issues because the additional £60 is clearly double recovery.

Finally, Park Direct UK can confirm a payment of £5 at 10:55pm 28/01/2021 to Park Direct via JustPark app (payment ID xxxx / xxxx). From 7pm-9am the Victoria Industrial Estate car park has a flat £5 fee. Paying earlier was impossible due to personal emergency.

I can confirm an address for service of:

<my address>

Yours faithfully,

Coupon-mad

That looks fine, especially the fact you paid by JustPark app, but I wouldn't add the bit about personal emergency. 

You paid for the time parked, and before the car left the site, yes?  In that case there is no revenue lost and this is different from the Beavis case.  Arguably, any claim as punishment for 'paying a bit later than we wanted' would have no cause of action

In an ANPR car park, where the system shows £5 was paid for the parking duration, there is no legitimate interest in hounding and suing a paying patron.  Stating that a person took too long to pay in a remotely monitored car park would be a vexatious and punitive claim, and would not get past a Judge.

I'm of course trying to stop the claim. I'd much rather not lose a day's work and go to court, if possible.

No-one has to go to court, it's done over the phone almost every time now and you can't avoid the claim.  It's a conveyor belt, a steamroller roboclaim.  It will happen, but by adding the above you are at least being seen to narrow the issues and make them look bad if they file a claim and (in our experience) they would then be more likely to discontinue before the hearing, in the end.

TeddyRuxpin83

Thanks so much for your thorough feedback. Yes, I paid before I left, @ 10:55pm via JustPark app (ticket issued ~9:30pm), but it was not an ANPR car park: it was a parking attendant's ticket. I left the site at ~9am the next morning, where I found the parking ticket on my car.

To be sure, I checked my car's GPS tracker and realised that I turned up at the car park at ~7:35pm, and left the car at 7:55-8pm. I didn't pay until 10:55pm. The car park's £5 flat-fee applies from 7pm-9am.

I'm hoping the 'no loss of revenue' and the added £60 means it won't reach 'court'. You mentioned that they don't need to lose revenue to start a claim (I explicitly stated that their client suffered no loss of earnings in an earlier draft but removed it as per your suggestion), but I'm hoping someone somewhere has common sense.... 

The 'loss of revenue' they will suffer will be far greater if this goes through as I've clearly been a good 'patron' for PDUK/this site over the past year.

Thanks also for a the clarification on the phone call/court issue. I'll remove the sentence about the personal emergency and send it in a few hours when I'm back home.